Connect with us
https://tickernews.co/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/AmEx-Thought-Leaders.jpg

Ticker Views

The United States has changed. Australia hasn’t. So where does the relationship goes from here?

Published

on

The United States has changed. Australia hasn’t. It’s time to talk about where the relationship goes from here

Bruce Wolpe, University of Sydney

Seven months after Donald Trump was inaugurated for a second term as US president, we are facing the most important moment in Australia’s foreign policy since the Iraq war. Australia needs to have a national conversation on the future of its alliance with the United States.

The alliance was on the line with Trump’s tariff decisions on August 1. The consensus was Australia dodged a bullet, and life goes on.

But this was no flesh wound. By dictating and unilaterally imposing the terms of trade between the US and Australia – affirming the “reciprocal tariffs” of 10% imposed on Australia, plus the tariffs of 50% on both steel and aluminium – Trump has trashed the historic US–Australia Free Trade Agreement.

Trump has not provided a good answer to the question of what he is doing to one of the US’s strongest and most consistent allies. And there is more to come. The president will also place a tariff on US imports of Australian pharmaceuticals.

There is also far more to come on the future of the US–Australia alliance.

Media have been full of opinions on what the relationship between the two countries ought to look like. These interventions have assayed the crucial importance of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese meeting personally with Trump; whether Washington was rattled by Albanese’s visit to China, whether Australia should “fortify northern Australia into an allied military stronghold for the region”; and whether the relationship is being mismanaged.

The best model for this conversation would be the economic roundtable Treasurer Jim Chalmers will host in Canberra this month. Its purpose, Albanese said, is to “build the broadest possible base of support for further economic reform”.

Why not apply the same process to the future of our foreign policy and alliance with the US?

A similar roundtable, convened by the foreign minister, and bringing together the smartest and most experienced people from across the political and foreign policy spectrum to discuss all these issues, would provide the best and most sincere guidance for the country.

A new reality

There are three bedrock truths that are unimpeachably clear since Trump reassumed power in the US.

First, Australia has not changed; the US has changed. Albanese and his government has not changed its posture towards the US. Trump has profoundly changed America’s posture towards Australia.

Second, the US is no longer the leader of the free world, because the free world is no longer following America. The democracies with which the US has been allied since the end of the second world war are no longer acting in concert with the US, but in reaction to what Trump is doing across the global landscape – from the Americas, to the Atlantic, Russia, the Middle East, China, the Indo-Pacific and Australia.

Third, Trump has destroyed the economic and trading architecture erected after the second world war to promote growth and prosperity. Nations engaging economically with the US are no longer trading partners but trading victims. The “deals” Trump boasts about are involuntary. Trump’s imposition of tariffs even on countries with a trade deficit with the US shows that his trade policy is at heart the unilateral exercise of US political power to force concessions to US domination.

What is under profound challenge today – 84 years after Prime Minister John Curtin turned to the US and 73 years after the ANZUS treaty came into effect – is whether the US under Trump is still aligned with the vision the two countries have shared for decades.

Australians have serious doubts about the relationship. The latest polling by Resolve Political Monitor documented “a strong desire for the country to assert more independence from the United States amid Donald Trump’s turbulent presidency”.

Fewer than 20% of Australian voters believe Trump’s election victory was good for Australia. Nearly half of voters believe it would be “a good thing” for Australia to act more independently of the US. Pew Research reported in July that only 35% of Australians believe the US is a top ally.

Trump is driving away US allies. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said after winning office, “Our old relationship with the United States, a relationship based on steadily increasing integration, is over.”

When the leaders of Japan and South Korea received Trump’s insulting letters of demarche on trade, they each said the correspondence was “deeply regrettable”, with Japan’s prime minister adding, “extremely disrespectful”.

Trump has also precipitated a trade war with India. How effective can the Quad – established by the US, Japan, India and Australia to serve as a counterweight to China – be if three of its four members are victims of Trump’s tariffs?

Australia has also broken with Trump on recognition of Palestine – issues of the highest importance to the president. Moreover, if the terms of whatever Trump is conjuring up with Putin to end the war with Ukraine are unacceptable to Ukraine and Europe, and Trump sides with Putin, a further sharp break by Australia with Trump is likely.

The “soft power” wielded by Australia is also involved here. From the UN’s inception, Australia has supported the architecture required to help secure peace, security, stability and the health and welfare of all peoples. But Trump has now withdrawn the US from UNESCO, the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, the Paris climate accords, the UN Human Rights Commission and others. He has terminated the USAID programs that delivered crucial health care and crisis relief. Medical studies project that millions of people will die as a result die in the coming years.

Australia uses that architecture to help change the world for the better. Trump is making that work much harder.

Time to talk

Trump is repealing all US programs that combat global warming – the most important environmental issue of our times and the number-one existential security issue for Asia-Pacific nations. Australia shares their urgency.

Since Trump’s inauguration, AUKUS has consistently been viewed as a bellwether for the relationship. Australia’s need for a modern submarine fleet is an existential issue of the country’s defence capability.

Will Trump, during the Pentagon’s review of AUKUS, change its terms to be more favourable to the US? Is Australia spending enough on defence? Will the pace of submarine construction ensure Australia receives the subs in the 2030s? If not, are there better solutions than AUKUS?

But the most important question is the most known unknown. What does Trump want from China? Trump has never outlined his endgame with President Xi Jinping. Yes, of course, the trade deal of the century. But at what price, particularly with respect to Taiwan? What are the consequences of all the scenarios and what does Australia need to do to be prepared?

Trump is president and will continue to act with power and drama. Albanese will respond on behalf of Australia. That would be business as usual. But without the benefit of a considered national conversation about the future of the Australian–US alliance and what is in Australia’s national interest, the current state of play does not rise to the challenges posed by Trump to Australia.

US baseball legend Yogi Berra once said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” That’s where we are. Let’s talk about it.The Conversation

Bruce Wolpe, Non-resident Senior Fellow, United States Study Centre, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Ticker Views

Lunar Gateway faces delays and funding debate amid Artemis ambitions

Published

on

What’s the point of a space station around the Moon?

Berna Akcali Gur, Queen Mary University of London

The Lunar Gateway is planned space station that will orbit the Moon. It is part of the Nasa‑led Artemis programme. Artemis aims to return humans to the Moon, establishing a sustainable presence there for scientific and commercial purposes, and eventually reach Mars.

However, the modular space station now faces delays, cost concerns and potential US funding cuts. This raises a fundamental question: is an orbiting space station necessary to achieve lunar objectives, including scientific ones?

The president’s proposed 2026 budget for Nasa sought to cancel Gateway. Ultimately, push back from within the Senate led to continued funding for the lunar outpost. But debate continues among policymakers as to its value and necessity within the Artemis programme.

Cancelling Gateway would also raise deeper questions about the future of US commitment to international cooperation within Artemis. It would therefore risk eroding US influence over global partnerships that will define the future of deep space exploration.

Gateway was designed to support these ambitions by acting as a staging point for crewed and robotic missions (such as lunar rovers), as a platform for scientific research and as a testbed for technologies crucial to landing humans on Mars.

It is a multinational endeavour. Nasa is joined by four international partners, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency (Esa), the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the United Arab Emirates’ Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Centre.

Schematic of the Lunar Gateway.
The Lunar Gateway.
Nasa

Most components contributed by these partners have already been produced and delivered to the US for integration and testing. But the project has been beset by rising costs and persistent debates over its value.

If cancelled, the US abandonment of the most multinational component of the Artemis programme, at a time when trust in such alliances is under unprecedented strain, could be far reaching.

It will be assembled module by module, with each partner contributing components and with the possibility of additional partners joining over time.

Strategic aims

Gateway reflects a broader strategic aim of Artemis, to pursue lunar exploration through partnerships with industry and other nations, helping spread the financial cost – rather than as a sole US venture. This is particularly important amid intensifying competition – primarily with China.

China and Russia are pursuing their own multinational lunar project, a surface base called the International Lunar Research Station. Gateway could act as an important counterweight, helping reinforce US leadership at the Moon.

In its quarter-century of operation, the ISS has hosted more than 290 people from 26 countries, alongside its five international partners, including Russia. More than 4,000 experiments have been conducted in this unique laboratory.

In 2030, the ISS is due to be succeeded by separate private and national space stations in low Earth orbit. As such, Lunar Gateway could repeat the strategic, stabilising role among different nations that the ISS has played for decades.

However, it is essential to examine carefully whether Gateway’s strategic value is truly matched by its operational and financial feasibility.

It could be argued that the rest of the Artemis programme is not dependant on the lunar space station, making its rationales increasingly difficult to defend.

Some critics focus on technical issues, others say the Gateway’s original purpose has faded, while others argue that lunar missions can proceed without an orbital outpost.

Sustainable exploration

Supporters counter that the Lunar Gateway offers a critical platform for testing technology in deep space, enabling sustainable lunar exploration, fostering international cooperation and laying the groundwork for a long term human presence and economy at the Moon. The debate now centres on whether there are more effective ways to achieve these goals.

Despite uncertainties, commercial and national partners remain dedicated to delivering their commitments. Esa is supplying the International Habitation Module (IHAB) alongside refuelling and communications systems. Canada is building Gateway’s robotic arm, Canadarm3, the UAE is producing an airlock module and Japan is contributing life support systems and habitation components.

Gateway’s Halo module at a facility in Arizona operated by aerospace company Northrop Grumman.
Nasa / Josh Valcarcel

US company Northrop Grumman is responsible for developing the Habitat and Logistics Outpost (Halo), and American firm Maxar is to build the power and propulsion element (PPE). A substantial portion of this hardware has already been delivered and is undergoing integration and testing.

If the Gateway project ends, the most responsible path forward to avoid discouraging future contributors to Artemis projects would be to establish a clear plan to repurpose the hardware for other missions.

Cancellation without such a strategy risks creating a vacuum that rival coalitions, could exploit. But it could also open the door to new alternatives, potentially including one led by Esa.

Esa has reaffirmed its commitment to Gateway even if the US ultimately reconsiders its own role. For emerging space nations, access to such an outpost would help develop their capabilities in exploration. That access translates directly into geopolitical influence.

Space endeavours are expensive, risky and often difficult to justify to the public. Yet sustainable exploration beyond Earth’s orbit will require a long-term, collaborative approach rather than a series of isolated missions.

If the Gateway no longer makes technical or operational sense for the US, its benefits could still be achieved through another project.

This could be located on the lunar surface, integrated into a Mars mission or could take an entirely new form. But if the US dismisses Gateway’s value as a long term outpost without ensuring that its broader benefits are preserved, it risks missing an opportunity that will shape its long term influence in international trust, leadership and the future shape of space cooperation.The Conversation

Berna Akcali Gur, Lecturer in Outer Space Law, Queen Mary University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

South Korea introduces AI job protection legislation

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.

Published

on

South Korea is proposing laws to protect jobs from AI, balancing innovation with workers’ rights amid rising automation.


South Korean lawmakers are taking bold steps to protect workers from the growing impact of AI on employment. The proposed legislation aims to safeguard jobs and support workers transitioning into new roles as machines increasingly enter the workforce.

Professor Karen Sutherland of Uni SC joins Ticker to break down what these changes mean for employees and industries alike. She explains how the laws are designed to balance technological innovation with workers’ rights, and why proactive measures are crucial as AI adoption accelerates.

With major companies like Hyundai Motor introducing advanced robots, labour unions have raised concerns about fair treatment and the future of human labour. Experts say South Korea’s approach is faster and more comprehensive than similar initiatives in the United States and European Union, aiming to secure livelihoods while improving the quality of life for displaced workers.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#AIJobs #SouthKorea #FutureOfWork #Automation #TechPolicy #LaborRights #WorkforceInnovation #Ticker


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Ticker Views

U.S. ambassador responds to NATO criticism at Munich Security Conference

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.

Published

on

At Munich Security Conference, U.S. NATO ambassador discussed defense autonomy, hybrid warfare, and transatlantic cooperation amid rising tensions.


At the Munich Security Conference, the U.S. ambassador to NATO faced tough questions on global order as European allies explored greater defense autonomy amid rising geopolitical tensions. The discussion highlighted the challenges NATO faces in maintaining unity while responding to evolving threats.

The ambassador addressed criticisms directly, emphasizing the importance of transatlantic cooperation and NATO’s role in ensuring international security. European nations voiced concerns about independent defense capabilities and the impact of hybrid warfare from Russia on regional stability.

Oz Sultan from Sultan Interactive Group provides analysis.

Subscribe to never miss an episode of Ticker – https://www.youtube.com/@weareticker

#MunichSecurityConference #NATO #GlobalSecurity #DefenseAutonomy #Geopolitics #TransatlanticAlliance #HybridWarfare #USForeignPolicy


Download the Ticker app

Continue Reading

Trending Now